Talk:Neurolinguistics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

NLP is completely related to neurolinguistics
Why are people trying to push NLP out of the article? Its unreasonable. NLP has had the best track record of any application of neurolinguistics. Clients have given the most praise for this subject. It certainly should be included. Mindstore 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is based on a profound misunderstanding of neurolinguistics, and clients' praises certainly have nothing to do with it. &mdash; mark &#9998; 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong! Check this out: http://www.spencerinstitute.com/nlp-coach-certification-program.html

http://www.lancethurston.com/
 * No, you're confused. The guys you link to are throwing around scientific-sounding words to make their products look more impressive. Neurolinguistics is an actual academic field, and I can guarantee you two things: (1) None of the researchers in the field of neurolinguistics have any link to NLP, or make reference to it, and (2) None of the people selling NLP have any real education in neurolinguistics, nor have they made any contribution to that field. If you ask these people I'm sure they'll confirm this. They just happen to have similar-sounding titles, with no actual connection.

NLP is a practical useage of neurolinguistics. Brain balancing, advanced neurodynamics. NLP is a new science and practice. Mindstore 02:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not. The people selling NLP even go so far as to tell you it's "not a science". If they claim it is, then they have to explain why it's completely ignored by the scientific community, despite being around since the 70s. It's a ruse to sell self-help books and training, NOT an area of academic research. I can see why the name might be confusing you, though.

NLP is a modern-day quackery, in my view, totally unrelated to any science. Show me any NLP-related studies in peer-reviewed neuroscience journals which show its effectivenes, and I will change my opinion.--CopperKettle 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello CopperKettle. Here are some studies on NLP that appear in journals relevant to neurolinguistics.

0Beck, Charles E.; Beck, Elizabeth A. (1984) Test of the eye movement hypothesis of Neurolinguistic Programming: a rebuttal of conclusions. Perceptual and Motor Skills; Feb Vol 58(1) 175-176

Farmer, A.; Rooney, R.; Cunningham, J.R. (1985) Hypothesized eye movements of Neurolinguistic Programming: a statistical artifact. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 717-718

They both state that NLP proponents make claims that they are related to neurolinguistics. I notice that quite a few sources on the web actually do claim that NLP is related to neurolinguistics eg. There are also views of neurolinguists that NLP has nothing to do with NLP. I think a couple of lines would help clarify that point. Wikipedia shouldn't have an opinion on that matter. Both views can be presented briefly. Docleaf 08:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This section is so awful it might as well be removed entirely.

1. Neurolinguistics is a genuinely scientific field of study of brain physiology in relation to various aspects of language acquisition and loss.

Neuro-Linguistic Programming is (a) about human communications, (b) absolutely NOTHING to do with neurology, (c) categorically NOT scientific. These points are made absolutely clear in "Frogs into Princes" (Bandler and Grinder, 1979) when they talk about their role as modellers.

2. Thus, as Mark observed, the claim that NLP has been "forced out" of this article on Neurolinguistics is nonsense, NLP was never relevant in the first place.

3. On a somewhat pedantic note, according to one ancestor of NLP (Alfred Korzybski), the names alone should be sufficient to point out the very basic difference between the two subjects. "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" refers to a partnership between two separate subjects - how language (linguistics) influences our behaviour on the basis of how our brains (Neuro) are affected (programmed) by what we hear and say.

Neurolinguistics is all of a piece (as it's proponents would presumably agree), being a study of the relationship between language (linguistics) and the physical structure of the brain. The term "neurolinguistics", though it may have been used informally beforehand, isw said to have been coined by Harry Whitiker for his "Journal of Neurolinguistics" which first appeared in 1985 - about ten years after Richard Bandler opted for the name "Neuro-Linguistic Programming".

Unfortunately, in the discussion above, both sides are mistaken. NLP was, from birth, valid - for one very simple reason. It has always been a collection of concepts and techniques ALREADY IN USE by acknowledged expert communicators. There are a few extra techniques, but those are developments of techniques already shown to be successful.

On the other side, whilst a handful of NLP-related techniques have featured in a variety of psychology-oriented magazines and journals since around 1977, up until just a few weeks ago, there has NEVER, AFAIK, been anything about NLP in any professional Neurolinguistics publication. Likewise Docleaf is mistaken about the claims made by Beck & Back and Farmer et al. Beck & Beck, for example, certainly don't use the word "linguistics" anywhere in their article, not least, I imagine, because it wasn't in common usage in 1984 (see above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.178.105 (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Computational modeling
The Computational modeling section talks about CM without ever saying what it is. This is an issue, for obvious reasons. Politizer (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

History
Needs to go further back--discussing, for example, phrenology and similar fields that led to the idea that the brain is divided up functionally. Or, at the very least, link to Neuroscience using the template. Politizer (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's an outline of a course in the history of neuro-linguistics: . It is very close to history of neuroscience. It would just emphasize some of the findings directly related to language and brain. It would be nice to have a summary of the historical differences between psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics. Action potential t c 04:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks very useful. I have some stuff on more recent history (past 10 years or so, ongoing arguments over stuff like the visual word form area, dual-route and single-route models of morphological analysis, semantic vs. morphosyntactic representations of word category, etc.) but most of that is probably too detailed for this article, which should be more of a dumbed-down survey. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 04:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See Also section
This section is full of Noam Chomsky stuff (Noam Chomsky, universal grammar, generative grammar), and he is not even a neurolinguist (and I hear rumors that he doesn't even get along with most of them. ! ). Yet it doesn't link to pages on brain imaging, any landmark studies or major areas/centers/processes identified in the brain, or other people who were highly influential in the field (i.e., Wernicke). So this section could obviously use some editing, as well.

new sections
A section on the relevance of neurolinguistics to other linguistic fields, and the interaction between the fields; a section on what influence neurolinguistics has had on real-life issues (ie, speech pathology, for examples); mention of some landmark studies (I mean, this article doesn't even mention Wernicke, who any college intro linguistics student knows). Politizer (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Collecting some references here
Just a beginning. Trying to find something relevant.
 * - A Non-Invasive Imaging Approach to Understanding Speech Changes following Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson's Disease
 * - Tributes to Macdonald Critchley and his achievements in neurolinguistics
 * - The breakdown of functional categories and the economy of derivation
 * - The elusive character of agrammatism (1995 review article)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Pubmed is a good database, and it will be good for me to get outside my comfort zone (right now, the majority of the sources here are things that are in the bibliography for my own latest paper).  I'll have to try to take a look at these over the break. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 01:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Spin-out
I'm also wondering if it might be useful to take the Experimental design section and spin it into another article, with a brief summary and a main link here.... but maybe it would be better to hold off on that until I've expanded more parts of the article (like, I still need to get around to writing a section on some of the big issues that are being researched a lot now), since right now I don't think the article size is a problem yet. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 01:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Computational modeling
That unreferenced section in the article has been bugging me for a while. I don't know anything about computational modeling, so for now I'm just throwing down some sites/books I just found that might be usable as references; if anyone knows more about this subject you're welcome to help with going through them. I didn't want to just remove or comment out the section, but if we can't find any good refs it might have to come to that :S Politizer talk / contribs 15:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * &mdash; book; the write-up online doesn't have much info but the book itself might
 * &mdash; conference announcement
 * &mdash; news article about a 2007 study
 * &mdash; another book


 * Removing the section for now, here it is:

One other important methodology in the cognitive neuroscience of language is computational modeling, which can demonstrate the plausibility or implausibility of specific hypotheses about the neural organization of language while generating novel predictions for further empirical research. Rather than deriving a mathematical analytical solution to the problem of language, experimentation with computational modeling is done by changing the parameters of the system in a computer, and studying the differences in the outcome of the experiments. Theories about the brain's computations can then be deduced from these computational experiments. Currently, computational modelers are collaborating increasingly with brain imagers and psychologists in coordinated, interdisciplinary programs of research. Such programs have yielded important new insights into the nature of language, as well as major language disorders affecting millions, such as stuttering and dyslexia.

Automatic attentional capture
This explanation in the "active distraction" section has not been appropriately integrated in the text by Politizer. It seems that Politizer still does not understand the text. Thus is it appropriate to revert back to the original text. Can someone help reword it so that it is better understood by the layman? 137.163.19.99 (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not appropriate to "revert back to the original text" until you can properly explain to other readers what the difference is. As far as I can tell, I have summarized your long addition. Polit i zer talk / contribs 14:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably inaccurately. 137.163.19.99 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I've said before, Wikipedia is not a science journal to go in-depth into specific experimental results and theories; it's a quick reference and the examples in it are just meant to illustrate a general point, give the reader the gist, and be done with it. In an overview article like this, which is meant to be written in summary style, it's not appropriate to have an extended discussion of a single study.
 * And your drive-by comment above is not constructive at all. You're welcome to dislike me, but please limit your comments to ones about how we can improve the encyclopedia. Polit i zer talk / contribs 14:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A quote, "Anyway, thanks for devoting your time to Wikipedia. There are very few Psychology academics who do, with the result that most of the Psychology information is very bad. I alternate between hope and despair over my involvement with Wikipedia. I hope that this is a useful medium through which to communicate science to the public, but I despair that most other academics regard it as a complete waste of time, that the scale of the task is so huge, and that the pearls you and I cast into it will be obscured by ill-meaning, and even well-meaning, swine.". 137.163.19.99 (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, you have given me this quote three times now, without ever putting it in context or saying where it's from. Do you have something constructive to say, or are you going to keep calling me swine? Polit i zer talk / contribs 14:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the other main contributors to the MMN article. The content seems rather objective, the author's name is in confidence and so the quote shall remain anonymous. There is nothing personal to be found in there; just a comment upon the state-of-affairs for Wikipedia. When looking for context, this can be found by reading and understanding the literature, which I understand can be a terrible burden upon a graduate student, whose most important work is yet to come. Hope this all goes well. Back to work. 128.214.205.5 (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking about the context of the literature, but about the context (within Wikipedia discussion) of the quote you keep repeating. But since now you appear to be uninterested in improving the encyclopedia through any of the channels I provided at your talk page(s), and only interested in insulting my intelligence, I won't be responding to your messages anymore. Polit i zer talk / contribs 15:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is hoped that these words can be seen as encouragement to an increased consideration of appropriate balanced accurate content. Different people write about the same thing in a manner that is more accessible to different people. But, better not to lose the intended meaning entirely. On a personal note, I am pleased to have finally graduated as a sock puppet! 128.214.205.5 (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse me of labelling you a sock puppet. You can see that I already asked the administrator handling this case (here) not to label you a sock puppet. Polit i zer talk / contribs 16:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Ed used the word sock. The 'war' was entirely fought inside Politizer's head. There seems no reason to become embroiled in some daftly official wiki-process about that. Please feel encouraged to open your mind to genuine content and not be insulted. 128.214.205.5 (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors who have strong feelings about article content, and who intend to do numerous reverts, would be well-advised to register an account. To be the proprietor of a constantly-changing IP appears devious, when creating an account is so simple. It's like taking responsibility for your work. Having a named account makes it simpler for others to contact you, since you will have a real user talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Another source
Stumbled across a review article that looks like it will be useful here (especially in the History, Brain Imaging, and Experimental Design sections); haven't had time to read it carefully yet, sticking it here for future reference. Polit i zer talk / contribs 19:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The opening paragraph in “Neurolinguistics” is generally well written though it could use some reorganization. The last sentence would be better placed earlier on, as it creates some disjunction in its current position. It is an important factor in understanding neurolinguistics, more key than some of the earlier provided information, and should appear earlier. Though the overall structure of the article is satisfying I find the structure within the section “Neurolinguistics as a discipline” would be more logical if the two subsections were reversed (“Topics considered” coming first and “Interaction with other fields” coming second). On the other hand, I do feel that the subsection “Topics considered” is closely related to the section “Technology used,” and current organization places those two fields near each other. Perhaps a better solution would be to give “Interaction with other fields” its own section entirely to create the best flow in the article. Briannah J (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neurolinguistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205094518/http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/broca.htm to http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/broca.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108093742/http://www.nami.org/Content/ContentGroups/Helpline1/Transcranial_Magnetic_Stimulation_(rTMS).htm to http://www.nami.org/Content/ContentGroups/Helpline1/Transcranial_Magnetic_Stimulation_(rTMS).htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091208115451/http://psych.athabascau.ca/html/Psych355/Exp/lexical.shtml?sso=true to http://psych.athabascau.ca/html/Psych355/Exp/lexical.shtml?sso=true
 * Added tag to http://www.maccs.mq.edu.au/~scrain/papers/GALA%2704.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)